What the fuck is the point of hexes?
Why are Civ 4 fags so insufferable?
>>339059761
I hate board games that are made in hexagons.
Homm3
>>339059761
they look cool.
There's a reason why uncool people are called "squares", you square.
>>339060231
But it's hip to be square.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_map#Advantages_and_disadvantages
More freedom of movement.
They allow you to move diagonally without distorting the move distance. If you move diagonally on a square grid, the diagonal distance is longer than horizontal or vertical
>>339060352
>8 directions to go
>6 directions to go
The fuck are you onto senpai
hex grids are awesome for music theory
>>339059761
What, never played hexxagon?
Makes movement and spacing more meaningful as your options are more limited.
>>339060445
what the fuck am I looking at
>>339060428
diagonals aren't allowed
>>339060589
This
Wouldn't an octagon work better?
>>339060589
Ehm wut
>>339060712
Diagonal is a longer distance on the left
>>339060512
I think it maybe has something to do with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnetz
>>339060589
>>339060708
You can't connect octagons in a grid
>>339060708
Try making a grid with only octagons.
>>339059761
more accurate distances when moving at angles when compared to a square grid.
With computer gaming hexes are pretty much obsolete outside turn-based games.
>>339060914
>>339060921
But more sides = more good
>>339060589
So it solves a non-problem (slight difference in traveled distance) by introducing much less natural grid where your character zogzag around like retarded bees? Great
>>339060874
This is a very false equivalence
>>339059761
I wanted to so triangle utilize like so. Unsung Story was gonna finally allow me to do that.
Then unsung straight up belly up.
I didn't kickstart it, but it a damn same all the same
>>339060953
Have a grid with TINY little circles and see how that works
Here are the choices:
1. Use a square grid with diagonal travel, and be forced to deal with annoying inconsistencies (e.g., "every other space costs 2 movement points") between diagonal and left-right-up-down movement
2. Use a square grid without diagonal movement, and be forced to travel a lot of extra distance when you want to go in a diagonal direction
3. Use a hexagonal grid, and be forced to travel a LITTLE extra distance when you want to go in a "diagonal direction"
Hexagons are better.
>>339060953
But you can't grid them up so for games hexagons are pretty much your max upper limit.
I suppose you could do it with multiple shapes or like Penrose tiles or something but that would be fucking retarded and play incredibly shittily and basically ruin the point of having more sides
>>339061083
*damn shame all the same
>>339060953
make a circle grid then
>>339061056
>slight difference in traveled distance
The difference isn't slight you shitposter
>>339061205
Circles only have one side
>>339060914
>>339060921
>>339060953
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s4TqVAbfz4
>>339060315
>distance to 6 surrounding is the same in hex
> desirable for games in which the measurement of movement is a factor
Not a factor in CIV because its not counted by distance, but number of "boxes"
>The other advantage is the fact that neighbouring cells always share edges; there are no two cells with contact at only one point
Hardly a factor in CIV because the left and right are connected to each other. So it only matters in that you cant attack from the north if a troop is on the top left or top right corner. Matters fucking never.
Can you really argue with something as awesomely organic-looking as pic related?
>>339061465
>its not counted by distance, but number of "boxes"
Dumbest thing I've read ever since this
>>339061284
They have two actually
>>339061284
Inside and outside makes two you fucking moron
>>339061281
Explain how that would have any negative effect on a game. Also, you're fundamentally wrong when it comes to turn-based games. In TB games the concept of 'distance between squares' in meaningless, since 1 square is the smallest possible distance to begin with, so "travelling time difference" doesn't exist.
In real time games its more noticable, but there's are ways out. For example in Dorf Fort things move vertically/horizontally faster than diagonally
Distance might
>>339061718
Dorf Fort is not turn-based
>>339061284
I think technically circles have no sides or infinite sides.
>>339061670
What do you mean "inside and outside"? Do square have 8 sides as well?
>>339059761
>muh stacks
>>339061284
Do you see any cops around?
>>339061465
>Not a factor in CIV
>>339062026
all I can see is tons of diangles
>>339062062
Whats your point here?
>>339062170
Then you're shit.
I see each space conjoined by half a space and sectioned by a quarter space.
2 layers.
>>339062191
They had to cut out the corners to balance the distances, you don't see that in Civ 5
>>339062062
Retarded I have to explain to you why it's not an issue, you missed a few pink boxes there son. Each of them is 1 or 2 steps.
>>339062575
Having diagonal movement cost the same as horizontal or vertical movement invalidates hor/vert movement entirely because diagonal is the optimal way to move to get anywhere, not counting 1 tile thin stretches of land.
>>339062575
>you missed a few pink boxes there son
I didn't miss anything, that's actually how the city working radius works in Civ 4
>>339061718
C'man nobody is this retarded, stop it.
>>339062575
>diagonal
>one step>
>>339062575
Yes, you successfully identified the problem that diagonal movement covers √2 times more distance. You're starting to get it.
CIV5 SUCKS DICK
>>339062746
If you restrict movement like that by only allowing N NE E SE S SW W NW, then you can count it as one step and it is still faired
>>339062703
Then they fucked it up, Thanks sid
>>339062575
>>339062703
>you missed a few pink boxes there
>mfw Civ 4 fags don't even know their own game
>>339062775
That's the fucking point they dont count in distance its all in amount of cells, have you even played the game before they went hex?
>>339062575
suddenly you realize why hexes are used
>>339063019
>have you even played the game
I don't know, have you?
>>339062941
thats where they fucked up, it needs the 4 extra corner squares and then allow movement in number of cells, not distance, thats the fix
wouldve fixed this shit after first semester in CS college unlike those dumbass developers they have workign there apparantly
>>339063019
nigga u retarded
>>339062941
>>339060953
>But more sides = more good
There's a good reason everything in computer geometry is tessellated, anon.
Look at >>339061083, the fact they are using hexagons is because they are formed by... regular triangles.
Triangles, man. The harsh rulers of the polygonal world.
>>339061718
>6 moves
versus
>4 moves
That's not a slight difference.
>>339063019
Because they count movement in cells, moving diagonally is inherently superior to moving horizontally and vertically, there is no reason to ever move your units on the horizontal or vertical plane unless you are forced to by terrain.
>>339063253
Squares are made from triangles too
>>339063482
So are circles
>>339063147
you stupid nigger
if its allowed to move diagonally at the same cost as vertically or horizontally it would break the games movement balance in a sense that moving diagonally will always be better than horizontally or vertically. That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go if you move diagonally compared to vertically or horizontally. Its retarded and you are retarded.
>>339062062
>>339062941
Meanwhile in Civ 5, NO corners are cut because every hex that is three tiles away from the city is the same distance away from the city anyway
Hexes are superior
>>339063601
Only if it's a low poly circle like an octagon
>>339063652
>That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go if you move diagonally compared to vertically or horizontall
Someone flanked these geometry classes
>>339063482
Equilateral triangle only applies
>>339063870
Cost wise it does you faggot.
read that shit again.
>>339060292
One song doesn't make it hip
Why not something like this?
>>339063652
>That means you DOUBLE the distance you can go
But you don't you fucking moron, because the distance in a game counts in squares, not miles.
kys
>>339063985
>>339063985
I think tilings where every tile is the same are easier to program.
>>339059761
Aesthetically, I like square grids better, because games that use hexagons for terrain (especially islands) end up making terrain features look like a blobby mess.
The "diagonal distance is larger" is a non-issue. It's a (likely) turn-based game in the first place, so there's already some notion of space and time being abstracted away.
More connectivity is also good; probably the biggest bonus of square grid over hexes.
>>339063482
Not regular ones.
That's the sole reason they don't work. Heck, you can even make a map out of regular triangles only (can't remember any game that does this ATM, though).
>>339061056
>natural grid
explain natural grid, what is natural grind
>>339063985
This is (in terms of graphs and topology) equivalent to a square grid, though (except at the black boundaries).
>>339063985
that's functionally a square tiling mate
>>339064126
Actually...
http://store.steampowered.com/app/280720
>>339064205
>>339064191
>>339064084
But what if you can move on both the squares and the octogons instead of one or the other?
>>339064106
That makes sense, but the added complexity might be worth it if it feels better to play?
What about decagons?
>>339064068
This. The game is already being discretized in space (and likely time as well, as most grid-based games are also turn-based), so why the fuck does it matter if distances are the usual Euclidean distance?
>>339063985
Please stop, I can only get so erect
>>339064297
>But what if you can move on both the squares and the octogons instead of one or the other?
You mean the other way around? Yes, if your movement is limited to only octagons, then it's not equivalent to a square grid, but rather a square grid where diagonals aren't allowed.
But if you let the player move on both octagons and squares, then it is equivalent to a square grid with diagonal movement allowed.
Hexes are the way things are done in Civ now.
Deal with it
>>339064191
>>339064205
The small squares in the octagon grid are adjacent to four other locations, the octagons are adjacent to eight locations.
Are you assuming that the small squares are non-functional? I hope no one is that retarded.
>>339064165
We encounter rectangular grids more often in our lives than hexes. Its also much easier to associate square grid with compass sides.
>>339064271
As I said, it makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint.
Square tiles' only real saving grace is that most people working with computers easily map them onto the memory while the other representations aren't as intuitive on the first look.
>all the fags in this thread saying DURR WHY NOT AN n-gon tiling
Read this shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_tilings_by_convex_regular_polygons
>>339064464
>But if you let the player move on both octagons and squares, then it is equivalent to a square grid with diagonal movement allowed.
How dumb are you? Look at how many spaces the small squares are adjacent to, even if it's just the corner touching. Count them out, then get back to me and tell me with a straight face that it's the same as a square grid.
>>339059761
In hex, movement from one tile to another is always the same distance.
This is not true for squares and means more rules are needed to address it.
>>339064068
>>339064464
>But if you let the player move on both octagons and squares, then it is equivalent to a square grid with diagonal movement allowed.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though.
HEXES AND 1 UNIT PER TILE ARE ABOMINATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE
I JUST KNOW THEY ARE AAAAAA
>>339064720
You're right, that was dumb. I forgot to include diagonals with this octagon-square tiling, yet I was talking about diagonals for a square grid.
The correct statement would be: the octagon-square tiling (no diagonals) is homomorphic to the square grid (with diagonals)
>>339064126
Having a equilateral triangle map is pretty much the same as having a hex map.
>>339063985
brb fapping my dick off
Why notnone
Seriously the technology is already far enough to outgrow the need to slap units in separate boxes, Civ 7 should just have action points or some shit. Most RTS games exist in a grid (for memory purposes) but allow units to move freely within them
>>339063985
Actually, with a tile system like this, you can do a lot with the geography. Might be fun, if programming it isn't a huge bitch.
>>339064068
>>339064767
Do you understand now why the corners should not be attainable if you can only move for one tile?
Does my having to draw a god damn picture on paint fucking clear things up?
>>339064792
No, actually, I think it looks nicer to disallow diagonals, so the octagon-square grid (without diagonals) might be more aesthetically pleasing than the square grid (with diagonals).
imo, diagonals in games often look "cheap," like you were somehow jumping around boundaries. This is purely about aesthetics, though - in practice, I have no problem with games that use diagonals.
They make games cooler
>>339065046
How are we gonna know that a mountain is within radius of a city without a grid?
>>339064767
Please keep being retarded, the world could always use more retards
>>339064736
WHY THE FUCK DOES EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATTER IN A LIKELY TURN-BASED GAME WHERE DISTANCES ARE ALREADY ABSTRACTED AWAY IN A DISCRETE GRID?
>>339063985
>>339065104
>>339065206
a "circle" in a square-grid-based game with diagonals just looks like a square (in the Euclidean sense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29
>>339065046
That would be awful. It would be impossible to measure distance in any meaningful way -- you'd always have to worry about being one pixel too close or too far.
In RTS games you rarely need to measure distance this way, but if I'm playing Civ and I want to plop a city down in a precise location it would be a UI nightmare.
>>339065206
Check if it's inside the borders, tard. You don't need a grid for that.
>>339065160
I think you're right in a game that goes in real-time and uses a grid, like an old Pokemon or a Ys game. But in a strategy RPG or something like Civ, or a board game, I don't think it's bad.
>>339065206
With helpful UI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkO5u1dTc0
>>339063658
>Hexes are superior
except they make all the continents look like blobs
>>339065528
>he thinks continents DON'T look like blobs
the fuck?
![world-physical-map[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GiYUhP9.jpg "world-physical-map[1].jpg")
>>339065528
Anon...
>>339065616
Wow is this Civ 6? Looks awful
>>339065046
>Civ 7 should just have action points or some shit
Please no. I hate that shit in all tactics games with a passion.
>>339064912
Almost, the concept of triangle like in >>339061083 have the unit standing in the point of intersection instead of the smack dab in the center of the the hex.
If this was a normal hex grid. the yellow unit would not be standing where he would be. Triangle grid in this configuration would allow for more nuance in positioning. Which is why I desperately want to see it in a tactic game
Fuck you Unsung Story. I hate you for breaking my heart.
>>339063147
You don't double it, you multiply it by the square root of two, roughly 1.414. It's very significant but not nearly double.
>>339064912
triangles with diagonal movement = hexes without diagonal movement
Here "=" means graph homomorphism
>>339065616
Try to represent sharp corners (e.g. Denmark) with hexes.
>>339065243
Your horseman has 2 movement points.
On a 100x100 all-land grid map, a horseman takes 50 turns to cross the map if he moves diagonally.
On that same map, a horseman can move 142 tiles in 50 turns if he moves crosswise instead of diagonally.
>>339065928
In a square grid, it's 100 tiles across diagonally. You literally just said the horseman would travel less tiles diagonally.
>>339064825
Why did you come here, reddit?
We had a nice intelligent thread.
>>339065928
This is completely flawed, who the fuck would give horsemen only 2 movement points?
>>339066169
>We had a nice intelligent thread.
![WIE_Allied_Sea_Lanes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qA7UODx.jpg "WIE_Allied_Sea_Lanes[1].jpg")
>>339065912
Try to representing any curve other than sharp corners with a grid map. I'll gladly sacrifice the Dutch coastline if everything else looks infinitely superior.
>>339066073
Reading us FUNdamental
>>339066196
>Civ devs don't know what they're doing, how could they have possibly extended the franchise for nearly 20 years?!
Do you think Pythagoras or fucking Archimedes would've protected people not to be this retareded in 2016? They're thinking just fuck my shit up in their graves.
>>339065928
>a horseman can move 142 tiles in 50 turns
You're losing me, anon, how did the horseman move 142 tiles in 50 turns when he can only move 2 tiles per turn? Is this cunt cheating?
>>339066356
>literally said a horseman can travel more than 2 x 50 tiles in 50 turns at a movement speed of 2
you're a retard
>>339059761
gameplay:
hexagons > squares
ease of creating nice architecture:
squares > hexagons
>>339066356
>Civ devs don't know what they're doing, how could they have possibly extended the franchise for nearly 20 years?!
By fixing their mistake in Civ 5. I'm glad competent developers realized that giving horses 2 movement points was retarded.
you now realize that hexes and squares are topologically identical, with the columns shifted half a square up and down as you proceed left or right
>>339064708
They're a bit easier to render too.
>>339066629
Unless you're telling me 4 = 6 or 8 = 6, you're going to have to show your work.
>>339065104
I don't understand how that would work. Are the small square "corners" tiles as well?
Seems a bit over-engineered to me.
>>339066629
>topologically identical
squares have 4 adjacent neighbors, hexes have 6 of them. No amount of topology-preserving transformations is going to turn one into the other
>>339066629
> with the columns shifted half a square up and down as you proceed left or right
thats pretty game changing senpai
>>339066680
>hex odd columns down, even columns up
wow that was hard, a two year old can write this in CSS
>this thread
I just wanna move in a straight line man.
>>339066749
I'm counting 2 corners of each square as being adjacent faces
that wont make you happy, so instead I'll show you a superior map of europe
related question: are there any tile-based games that make use of creative tiling patterns with more than one shape?
Something like octagons + squares, hexagons with equilateral sub-tiles for smaller units, penrose tiling or even in 3D like pic related
>>339066850
now do it on a tile based rendering engine. You must not use transparency
>>339066828
With diagonal movement squares have 8 neighbors.
>>339066828
i dont understand why its so hard to explain people like you in this thread that if you allow north south west, east movement, but also ne se sw nw, you can have equal amount of cell movement as the hex shifting
>>339066895
>I'm counting 2 corners of each square as being adjacent faces
why not the other 2? So they're the same under your arbitrary limitations?
>>339066871
In the grand scheme of things, you are
>>339066931
I said adjacent, I said nothing about movement
>>339066871
are you trying to tell me you ain't gay? that you don't want to suck dick? nigga please
>>339066419
My bad, he can move the REAL LIFE EQUIVALENT of 142 tiles. Of course, on a grid map, that's all abstracted for gameplay purposes. Hence the FUCKING PROBLEM WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE LAST 250 POSTS.
>>339066895
>They're topologically equivalent if I just make shit up for two of the corners.
If I'm just allowed to say "X is adjacent to Y" then no shit you can force two things to be equivalent.
>>339066986
if you accept point adjacency, instead of edge adjacency, squares have 8 adjacent squares, hexes still just have 6 adjacent hexes. So there's two missing. No topology-preserving transformations can gain these two
>>339067119
But the real life equivalent doesn't matter in grids.
>>339065928
I think the main issue that "bothers" people is this:
Suppose we have our 100x100 grid. Our unit can move 1 grid per turn, and diagonals are allowed and are treated exactly the same as adjacent movement. We start in the lower-left corner. It takes the same number of turns (100) for the unit to reach the upper-right as it does for it to reach the lower-right. And, even if the horseman moved along diagonals the whole time, it would still take the same number of turns to reach that lower-right. They would not have "cheated" anything by taking diagonals instead of adjacents.
Now why does this bother people? Because they're still thinking in terms of Euclidean geometry. We've already abstracted out distance by discretizing into a grid; why does it matter if the game follows purely Euclidean rules in the first place? We can pick whichever metric we want; you just have to expand your mind.
>>339066819
It probably is. I figured you'd be able to move on any tile you want and make any piece a corner piece. But as I put it together, I kind of realized how dumb the huge gaping holes in the middle were and filled them in.
Maybe in a SRPG, it could be like the bigger the tile you're standing on, the lower your defense goes. Or something. I'm not a game designer, man.
>>339063736
wrong, any regular polygon with n sides is made of n polygons, the circle is made of n-→∞ triangles faggot
SOMEONE CALL /TG/ I NEED ADULT SUPERVISION
>>339066986
Here the problem with grids.
Let say in this example a character can move 5 unit.
On the left, you can't move diagonal. As a result the green space are area the character can't reach that are 5 unit away as represented of the darker green circle.
On the right grid, you can move on the diagonal. As a result the character can move way past the 5 unit distant represented of the the circle.
>>339067245
fun fact: in manhattan distance geometry a "circle" is an euclidean square. "Circle" using the mathematical definition (the set of all points having the same distance from a reference point)
>>339067419
Yep, and in the max-norm, a "circle" looks like a square as well; just rotated by 45 degrees from the Manhattan "circle.
>>339067221
That depends on what you think matters.
For instance, take Civ 3's corruption mechanic: The further a city is from your capital, the more corruption it experiences. Because of this, it's in your best interest to expand diagonally rather than directly north south east west, since 10 squares diagonally northwest would give you less corruption than 10 squares directly west. This makes zero sense gameplay wise, since either city is nominally the same distance from the capital (10 squares).
>>339067406
And it doesn't matter because other units can also move that distance.
>>339066986
I'll explain it to you.
See what if you want to move where the blue and red lines point, notice the brown mountain underneath there.
Does that cost 3 steps? or 2? So you can't move diagonally because of the mountain. So if there is an object there, it takes 3. But if there is no mountain, you can move diagonally and thus do it in 2 moves?
So how would that work? If these shapes were hexagonic instead of the cube, then it would be the same always, not this shit
>>339067406
The purple being part of the movement the character can make on the right example.
>>339067406
So why is the one on the right a problem?
>>339067406
Why is this a problem? Why does it need to "look" like a circle to convey the same idea mathematically/mechanically?
>>339067245
I agree completely, it's the Civ devs who don't. Anyone who's played a videogame before 2005 has already internalized the "squares are equidistant to eachother" rule, despite that rule's lack of a basis in reality.
>>339067565
Why?
Something is definitely wrong here. I think I'm seeing the same shit again and again.
More surface area than a square without the wasted interior space of a circle. Basically perfect modular sections.
>>339067245
>>339067419
The problem is that our brain is used to euclidian geometry. Game maps are generally meant to represent a real terrain or something like that, not an abstract hyperspace.
If a game doesn't use euclidian geometry then it makes it harder to have an intuitive grasp of distances, because objects on diagonals will effectively be closer/further away than they seem. It might also result in weird strategies such as having an advantage if you always move across diagonals since you'll be able to cover more terrain with the same number of steps.
>>339067667
You can move outside 5 unit away if you move diagonal. Essentially your moving much faster then you suppose to be when moving diagonal.
>>339063985
Because the moment a player steps on a square they can only move vertically or horizontally. If they step on an octagon they can only step diagonally. Which in turn movement becomes awkward.
>>339064640
>We encounter rectangular grids more often in our lives than hexes. Its also much easier to associate square grid with compass sides.
this is the most pulled-out-of-ass explanation i have ever seen
>>339067943
>If they step on an octagon they can only step diagonally
Says who?
Real answer:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiagonalSpeedBoost
>>339067904
You're thinking in units again, it actually makes fucking sense, the circle means its the same distance all around. Just because you're seeing cells on the screen doesn't mean you exactly have to count them out. One could even argue you should be able to move in any direction within that 5 cell radius.
i'm a huge nerd who loves civ5 to death. should I try out civ 4? what should i look forward to it that sets it apart from civ5?
>>339067278
Small squares are quick-steps. They only cost half a movement point to move into or out of but you cannot end your turn in them. Thematically, they represent slipping around an enemy or darting forward, attacking, and then retreating.
In the absence of enemies you could just move normally so the small squares would serve no function.
>>339068097
FUCK OFF WERE TALKING ABOUT TILES
I love talking about this topic.
>>339068042
And putting hexes just means you are forced to zigzag instead of keep going one direction the entire route. How does that make more sense?
Let CIV set an x-amount of cells as the radius and be able to move in that radius in any direction.
>>339068104
That's way too complicated for a general grid system. I mean it can work for a given game but you'll have to base your gameplay around it, basically.
Grids/Hexes are reasonably general-purpose.
>>339068331
>And putting hexes just means you are forced to zigzag instead of keep going one direction the entire route. How does that make more sense?
see
>>339067039
why is the hex vs. square discussion now popping up with civ 6? The change was in civ 5, and back then everybody was cool with it
>>339068104
>>339067278
>>339064461
>>339064998
>>339065356
Are people really this fucking stupid or is someone samefagging?
>WAAAAAAAAH I WANT S-SQUARES BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLER AND I EAT MY OWN GENITAL-LINT WAAAH
-squarebabbies
>>339068437
You kidding? Civ 4 fags actively come into Civ 5 threads to shitpost over hexes (and 1UPT)
>>339068371
>I mean it can work for a given game but you'll have to base your gameplay around it, basically.
Well duh.
>>339068104
That's an interesting idea I hadn't considered, but I think for the sake of more freedom of movement, players should be allowed to end a turn on the smaller squares. If all movement costs some sort of set movement points, or speed, etc, then it might work.
>>339068474
In all seriousness tho, hexes are just better.
>>339068515
of course they do, I would too. But I figured eventually they'd go back to playing the better game, instead of bothering with the 5-tards
>>339068520
I mean that you have to make a whole set of arbitrary rules for it to work, hexes basically just work. Grids do to although you might have to cut corners sometimes.
>>339068376
Say you have 4 movement speed allowed. You want to go 5, which takes 2 turns. On the first turn you can't end on the border of 2 cells, the game puts you in the middle of either the top or bottom cell. That's what he was talking about.
>>339068017
Oops. I meant to say when you step on a square you are limited to making only 4 moves while stepping on an octagon gives you 8. It's flawed nonetheless.
>>339067774
If you move in a straight line, the green circle represent the outer limit of your movement ignore the grid.
However if with diagonal movement, your going a farther then 1 unit distant. (√2 or approx 1.41421356237)
that extra 0.41421 whatever adds over the more you travel so the character ends up moving farther when normal.
>>339059761
>What the fuck is the point of hexes?
They give a more rounded appearance and a somewhat more natural movement range. Squares are for people or systems that can't figure out how to move beyond cardinal directions.
>>339068304
How would that shit even work? First two persons to make an exchange immediately put themselves in disadvantage compared to the third guy
>>339068604
hexes have a lot of advantages, especially in strategic games. civ wasn't hexes until someone broke it in 5. That's the only issue, really. Someone trying to go hardcore strategy sim on an entertaining 4x game, trying to "fix" it by destroying one of its most recognizable aspects. It's the equivalent of a developer minmaxing. Soulless bullshit. Makes for a crappy game
>>339068604
Everything should be triangles.
>Hexes
>patrician choice
>allows for more fluid, better movement and combat
>made for mature gamers who can handle shapes with more than four sides
>deepens gameplay mechanics
>Squares
>for children who get headaches at the thought of playing a GOOD game
>combat and movement are simplified for the lowest common denominator
>literally as bad as triangles
Any questions?
>>339068806
>the most recognizable aspect of civ was squares
Nigger are you high
>>339068097
>>339068097
religion has bigger repercussions, micromanagement per city opposed to vs your empire matters more, and the diplomacy is more involved.
but hexes feel way better than squares. hopefully the districts in c6 bring back that element of micromanagement that 5 broke away from.
>>339068826
triangles are cool too.
>>339068474
>WAAAAAAH I WANT HEXES BECAUSE RETARDED-LOOKING COMPLICATED SHIT MAKES ME FEEL SMART
Go play some autismal wargame #40368390
>>339068732
>ignore the grid
Or don't. You're trying to read a grid with euclidean distances, and it just doesn't work. Read it in movement units and it's perfectly consistent internally. It's like complaining about the color of the sunset on a black & white photo
>>339068705
Maybe you're right, but maybe you aren't giving the players enough credit to get used to it. Either way, it's fun to discuss.
>>339068469
I'm only the second poster there, anon
>>339068908
With all the info released on announcement day and two days ago, there seems to be a lot more focus on opportunity costs, which I am very much looking forward to.
>>339068898
>one of its most recognizable aspects
>one of
learn to read
>>339068732
So why not just remove the grid and allow movement in any direction, just based of simulated kilometers or some measure of distance?
>>339059761
They're more aesthetically pleasing.
>>339068959
> #40368390
Calling out tile guy
I know you're browsing this thread you fucking weirdo
>>339068331
Are you retarded? A hex grid offers 6 directions to travel in a straight line versus 4 for squares, or 12 and 8 respectively if you allow "diagonals", which are really zig-zag paths in either case
>>339069080
fucking reminds me of Endless Legend. Beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5YkmjalDg
You might think I’m crazy, but I don’t even care,
Because I can tell what’s going on:
It’s hip to be square!
>>339069058
Nigger are you high. They're just fucking squares, not a defining feature of the franchise.
>>339069076
Some games do this, but it's not the point of the conversation. This is Hex vs Square.
PS: Square is superior
>>339069015
Well, yeah, you're right. I'm not giving enough credit. It's better than constantly reading shitposting.
>>339069145
It's "where friends Meat-y meat"
>>339069076
more difficult to code the engine for. Grids are often used for statistical distributions, where you assign each grid cell a value and do more computations with that. For example, you could easily get the "protection" of a cell (made up, not civ related) by summing up the protection level nearby units give it, and then end up with a nice 2D cell sheet of data to compute ideal routes, strategies, and so on.
If you remove the grid, then you're left with gaussian or other distributions of "spheres of influence" that can affect any point. Where and how would you sample these functions to determine next actions? You'd have enormous computations overhead, or ... a hidden grid overlaid, that samples these values again
>>339069080
Holy fuck Uncharted 4 looks fucking amazing, almost like real life.
>>339069204
That's why I changed my opinion of squares vs. hex and brought non grid free movement based on distance into the argument.
>>339060292
It's hip to FUCK BEES
>>339069382
you realize that doesn't make sense right
>>339069293
in a time when every other "strategy" game out there does hex, yes, being on squares is a defining feature
>>339069293
Civ5 babby detected. You won't believe how jarring this shit was for someone who played 4X games since Alpha Centauri
>>339069076
There some kickstart rpg that does literally that to good effect. I can't remember the name. Something fantasy style. It was pretty good.
>>339067406
Ok, but don't you have the exact same problem with a hex grid? Or am I being retarded here?
>>339060708
I'm sure it'd work fine.
>>339059761
>Hexes
>aesthetically pleasing
>6 lines instead of 4
>even fucking bees love hexes more than squares
Fuck off squarefags this is Hex territory
>>339069505
Oh god it's hideous.
>>339069640
you do, but it's less pronounced. The green region has a smaller area.
>arguing over fucking hexagons and squares
what the fuck /v/
>>339069640
You can clearly see that the area of the unreachable space is smaller with hexes. It more accurately resembles a circle.
>>339069795
get the fuck out casual
>>339069795
HEXES RULE SQUARES DROOL
>>339069640
Then this happens if you do the 3 tiles in a direction thing, much further than striaght south
http://www.strawpoll.me/10325705
>>339069640
From the looks of it, it a how lot less pronounce then with squares. If you look at it, there no full missing space from not being 3 unit away.
Square is more practical and readable
Hex is more aesthetic
>>339068806
if you want the game you like to stay exactly the same just play civ4 forever
